In America, atheists are still in the closet

[SupaAFC]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Liar.
(quote)
Wednesday, 26 December 2012 13:12
In U.K., Freedom of Speech and Press Hang in the Balance
Written by Alex Newman

Did you actually read the article or just stop at the title?

The debate is focused on the extent to how far people should have the right to express strong/extreme views in social media. Because many people use Facebook, Twitter, and so on, many people affected by tragedy can and have read comments by others that are considered offensive.

That is a completely different kettle of fish compared to expressing your views on, say, the government. We have the right to protest against whatever we want - even against that whole issue over to what extent posting on social media should be accepted or not.

You want to talk about denial of freedom of expression? Go ask a Chinese dissident or someone in Saudi Arabia who cannot criticise their regimes without being killed.

You truly are clutching at straws.

[Adam]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
the world has no god, so what's new...lots of crazy people build building for non-existent deities around the world, what is your point?
Are you crying about getting the constitutional monarchy definition wrong again?

Skeptic - just like to say, I like your forthright style. Keep up the good work!

[ChristineM]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Is the UK still a monarchy?
Does the Queen still appoint the prime minister?
Is it true that Macmillan was not elected by his party to be nominated?
True that the LAW requires collective Christian worship in tax-funded schools?
And that UK captured TWO working Enigma's in Norway?
What else, Skanque?
That you tried to "insult" me by insisting my "wife" ran off with a black man?
And that you say you aren't the bigot by suggesting it?
Caught up?

Yes
Approves the appointment
Yes, is it true that John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur and Gerald R. Ford were never elected president?
It is one law, as explained to you several times it is overridden by the Universal declaration of human rights. Tell me is it true that the US has no intention of ratifying the Universal declaration of human rights?
Working but not full spec as I have REPEATEDLY shown you and which you REPEATEDLY fail to respond.
What else drippydick cuckold?
You repeatedly try to insult me by calling me skanque, by lying about my husband, you repeatedly try to racially insult Straa and you rant and rave in incredulity when it backfires on you.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
How dare Lincoln die in office!
Do see: 12th Amendment

How dare Eden resign? Do understand that until then the UK had no formal mechanism for selecting a new leader under such circumstances. Now it does.

Look, works BOTH ways

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you post video, Skanque?
There must be experience to back up all this drippydick talk.
You do understand guys don't care?

Still no proof and making up BS in frustration only means you are making up BS in frustration.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAYAHAHA!
You don't say?
Tell me: does the expression "Off with his head!" ring any bells?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Skanque: do show us all the law that guarantees the SUBJECT of the monarch freedom of speech.

So are you saying that a fictional play by Shakespeare is colouring your judgement (or perhaps the black adder II series) or are you saying your are fooking clueless about British history?

Free speech is a tenet of common law, the British legal system and courts uphold this principle. It is backed up by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Better luck next time.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
12th Amendment.
You do understand that procedures are in place for the office being vacated, i.e., presidents die?

Not my problem, still UNELECTED. Live with it

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
The UK has a state church.
See above...

So, it also has a road system, that does not mean everyone drives.

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Liar.
(quote)
Wednesday, 26 December 2012 13:12
…

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998

It does not matter how some sensation seeking reporter interprets HUMAN RIGHTS for New American sensationalism magazine.

Funny how Newman forgot to mention that each of the cases he cited broke other laws, the argument between freedom of speech and say, anti terrorist laws, anti racism laws, deformation laws is argued in court. That is what the British legal system is all about, I realise it’s not written on a piece of paper for the hard of thinking like you (and Newman) to follow but hey, you don’t live here so who cares what you think?

What him, you and many americans seem to get all confused over is that freedom of speech comes with responsibility, not freedom of speech on YOUR terms but responsible freedom. In the UK you are free to verbally abuse who you want but expect the FULL weight of the law to jump on you if you cross the boundary to irresponsibility.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Speaking of lying, when are you going to admit that you lied about universities not giving out politics degrees

Waiting for proof.

Setting aside your claim to have two.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

.. or the Weimar republic not being a democracy which you then tried to change by adding "in WWII"?

Never the quote.

Always the straw man.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

Of word games. You pounce on semantics to avoid the arguments themselves.

Like when someone takes a quote from me, removes the word "not" and posts it as mine.

Semantics?

You tell us that something is "unanimous", I prove it was not "unanimous", and you(rather than saying you were wrong) say it was a grammar error?

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

Dickweed.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

The Weimar republic not being a democracy?

Show the quote.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

You -never-, ever, cite your sources.

Simple.

I prove you (above) wrong: you stop posting.

Or do I prove you wrong (again) and you say you were "grammatically" incorrect?

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you actually read the article or just stop at the title?

Happy to see that written guarantee the SUBJECTS of the UK have: freedom of speech.

But we wait for you to put up- re: never cite.

[barefoot2626]

SupaAFC wrote:

For instance, like refusing to define democracy.

Is the UK a monarchy, yes or no?

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes
Approves the appointment

Poor Skanque: prove wrong yet again.

Macmillan was not elected by his party.

And the Queen MAKES the appointment.

Of course, that is using the English language and the actual meaning of words.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

Yes, is it true that John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur and Gerald R. Ford were never elected president?

Presidents die. Vice presidents are elected.
No matter how hard you stomp your feet.

Now why don't you give us a list of prime ministers who have been elected prime ministers?

Let me help you: none. Zero.

Never ever.

[voc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch... #!

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

So are you saying that a fictional play by Shakespeare is colouring your judgement

I love the way you make me responsible for the conclusion to which you jump, Skanque.

tomorrow you will insist that you quoted me... but won't feel like finding the quote when I remind you that you are a liar.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

What else drippydick cuckold?

You have the real time, real life drippydick oral experience, Skanque: bouncy bouncy mmmmmmmm yummy yummy lickity lick.

Swallow and smile for the camera, Skanque.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

How dare Eden resign? Do understand that until then the UK had no formal mechanism for selecting a new leader under such circumstances.

The formal mechanism is: the Queen appoints all the prime ministers, ever single one.

And you have absolutely no say in it. Same as me.

I have exactly the same say in who is the UK prime minister as you.

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998
It does not matter how some sensation seeking reporter interprets HUMAN RIGHTS for New American sensationalism magazine.

Still waiting: where is that legal guarantee of freedom of speech.

I've already REFUTED your assertion that it exists, bigot.

[-Skeptic-]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Still waiting: where is that legal guarantee of freedom of speech.
I've already REFUTED your assertion that it exists, bigot.

its called a constutional monarchy, not a monarchy - get it right you armchair academic..

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

Free speech is a tenet of common law, the British legal system and courts uphold this principle. It is backed up by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

(quote)

Earlier this week a man stood up in the centre of London and sang a song about a guy who murders his girlfriend in a jealous rage. The lyrics seemed to blame it mainly on the woman. Watching the singer from a nearby spectator stand were the prime minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury and much of the royal family. They rocked or even sang along with the refrain, "Why, why, why, Delilah?" Some of them also waved little Union Jack flags, to endorse this enjoyable little ballad of murder ("I felt the knife in my hand and she laughed no more"). One question this raises is: why did the police not immediately arrest them all – princes, prime minister and archbishop – under section 5 of the Public Order Act?
Don't be absurd, you say. But would it be any more absurd than a student being arrested under section 5 for saying to a mounted policeman: "Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?", or the 19-year-old Kyle Little, charged and convicted – though then cleared on appeal – for delivering what was described as a "daft little growl" and a woof at two labradors? Or a 15-year-old summonsed for holding up a sign outside the Church of Scientology's central London headquarters saying: "Scientology is not a religion. It is a dangerous cult"?(I repeat those exact words here, as my own. Officer, you know where to find me.)

Then there was the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, arrested and charged for shouting slogans and displaying placards condemning the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people by Islamic governments, during a protest at a Hizb ut-Tahrir rally. And an evangelical Christian preacher who was convicted and fined for holding up a home-made sign that, beside the motto "Jesus is Lord", proclaimed: "Stop immorality, stop homosexuality, stop lesbianism."
All these are real cases of British police abuse of a law so loosely worded that it invites such abuse. That is why a campaign to reform section 5 was recently launched by an unusual coalition of Christians, atheists, gay rights activists and politicians of all stripes. But if we want a transparent, secure platform for freedom of expression in Britain, we need to go further.

Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act says a person "is guilty of an offence if he (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby".

There are two things wrong with this catch-all wording. First, unlike section 4 of the same act, and Britain's legislation on incitement to hatred on grounds of religion or sexual orientation, it does not require evidence of an intention to cause harassment, alarm or distress. The standard is just "likely to". Who decides what is "likely to" be caused harassment, alarm or distress? On the street, the police do.

Yes, the Crown Prosecution Service may then choose not to prosecute, or the court may throw the case out – this is not Ukraine – but the 15-year-old making an entirely reasonable point, or the student telling a bad joke, will in the meantime themselves have been subjected to unwarranted alarm and distress. A law that aspires to prevent harassment has become a licence for the harassment of ordinary citizens by the police.

Then there is the word "insulting". The government has opposed its removal partly on the grounds that the courts would have the invidious task of distinguishing between the merely insulting and ..
(clip)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/...

[barefoot2626]

ChristineM wrote:

What him, you and many americans seem to get all confused over is that freedom of speech comes with responsibility,.

The freedom of speech comes with our Constitution.

Which brings us back to: We have freedom of speech and you don't.